The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 04131999 - SD6 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVI )RS Contro m i s onto FROM: CARLOS BALTODANO, DIRECTOR ounty BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT GATE. March 12, 1999 SUBJECT: Appeal of Abatement action at 18-16 Bell. Monte S. , Bay Point, CA APN # 095--034-002 Owner: MONSON SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: After hearing the appeal, it is recommended to deny the appeal and affirm the determinations of the County Abatement Officer and direct the County AbatementOfficer to proceed and perforin the work of abatement . FISCAL IMPACT: $12, 000 > ,. if the County does the abatement . BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS : On July 9th , '1998 a complaint was received regarding a substandard dwelling, lacking utilities and junkyard conditions on the premises. On. December 30, 1.998 a detailed site inspection was conducted and revealed the duple structure has unstable foundations, lack of heating, electrical hazards, plumbing deficiencies and insufficient egress, ventilation and light requirements. The following violations of the County Ordinance exist : Title 7, Chapter 7122 . 004 (substandard building) The owner of the property has been notified through written correspondence and certified snail. As of this date compliance has not been gained. On February 8, 1999, the Building Inspection Department declared the property a public nuisance and posted a Notice Carder to Abate under Title 1, Chapter 14-8 . Thz.,�r a peal is being made under the provisions of this title . CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: I YES SIGNATURE r RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S)- ACTION OF BOARD ON April 13. 1999 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED MC OTHER The public hearing was OPENED; No one appeared to spew; the hearing was CLOSER. the Board then took the following action.: DENIED the appeal; AFFIRMED the determinations of the County Abatement Officer; and DIRECTED the County Abatement Officer to proceed and perform the work of the abatement. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ASSENT-= � _ 1 AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABS€NT:__ ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED April 13, 1999 cc: Building 1nspectian�3eparfment PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUN3Y ADMI ST TOR r B / DEPUTY r'^ Y !A i 1V0 B. WAi KI R. M. 1). ((-' V//�� HI Al I,s Slf:r, I', ✓ir:i� li):. OFF;CL F i HE D1RECTOR ZC A!�en Street Martinez, California CONTRA COST 94553-3191 H E A L T H SERVICES Ph c925> 370.5010 Fax (925)-370-5098 TO: ✓ Finance Committee Family &Human Services Committee FROM: Mary Foran, MPH Assistant to the Director DATE: February 26, 1999 SUBJECT: Proposition 10 Referral: Additional Information on Distribution of Problems At the Finance Committee discussion on February 8, information on the distribution of problems which might be addressed by Proposition 10 was requested. Information on perinatal substance abuse and perinatal problems in general has been provided. Attached are two additional documents. The first gives a picture of the perinatal indicators (low birth weight, births to teens and timing of prenatal care) for Fast, Central and West County. The most critical factors for healthy births are access to early prenatal care, which is dramatically decreased when families are uninsured, and effective intervention during pregnancy to address nutritional needs, smoking and substance abuse. The second summarizes the results of parent focus groups held in 1994 as part of an earlier planning effort. What is striking about these findings is that parents across geographic, racial, ethnic and economic groups shared many of the same concerns. W:mg Attachmmts { * Contra Costa Community Substance Abuse Services * Contra Costa Emergency Medica!Services is Contra Costa Environmental Health * Contra Costa Health?Ian * Contra Costa Hazardous?Jlaterlals Programs *Contra Costa Mentai Health * Contra Costa Public Health * Contra Costa Regional Medical Center * Contra Costa Health Centers wit)i;gym B. WN1 Kl ;,. M. D. �FFIr`E OF HI A101, si;:',+l , a. THE DIRECTOR 20 Aken Sheet CO ; R ( ; h Martinez, Cal fr— TA CH EALTH SERVICES Ph (925) Fax (925) 370-5098 Perinatal Indicators by Region of County Introduction This briefing contains information about the distribution of papulation and births in Contra Costa County,and three issues related to infant health----low birth weight, births to teenagers and late entry into prenatal care. All of the information here is presented by the three regions county(East,West and Central) defined by zip codes. (A description of the regions by zip code and a map of the regions is included at the end of this briefing). Several different sources for data were used in the process of assembling this report.Information about the demographics of and population estimates for Contra Costa and California come from the 1990 Census, the California Department of Finance, and population estimates from Claritas, a population statistics company. The data used to create the perinatal statistics, low birthweight,late entry into care and teenage pregnancy are from Birthnet, a computerized source of birth statistics maintained by the California Department of Health Services(CDHS). This data was compiled and analyzed by the Contra Costa Health Services,.Family,;Maternal and Child Health program. The following charts and tables are include in the briefing: •Population by Region., Contra Costa County, 1980, 1990 and 1997 *Number and Percentage of Births by Region, Contra Costa County, 1992-1997 * Number and Percentage of Mothers Who Received Prenatal Care in the First Trimester by Region, Contra Costa County, 1992-1997(Chart and Table) •Regions and Cities/Places by Zip Codes,Contra Costa County •Three Regions of Contra Costa by Zip Code We hope that this Perinatal Briefing Report provides useful insight into significant perinatal issues in the county. Distribution of Population-and Births 1.Population distribution The following table describes the distribution of the population in the three regions of the Contra Costa County in 1980, 1990 and 1997. While growth occurred in all regions of the county, proportions were shuffled.The proportion of the population in West and Central County declined while the proportion in East County increased. / • Contra Costa Community Substance Abuse Services + Contra Costa Emergency Medical Services • Contra Costa Envrronmentat Health • Contra Costa Health Plan . Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Programs +Contra Costa Mental Health • Contra Costa Public Health . Contra Costa Regional Medical Center • Ccntra Costa Heatttr Ce_.=•s Population b Region , Contra Costa County 1980 1990 and 1997 Region bf 1980 1990 1997* she County. 'ercen Nttmber Percent Number Per int e r t Regi tz :M-Region egion.: M a ix� gion; R gic�zt' East 117,216 17.51 177,257 21.59 223,175 24.47 West 193,991 28.98 225,965 27.52 233,908 25.65 Central 358,090 53.50 417,763 50.89 454,788 49.87 *Estimated 2. Distribution of Births by Region, Contra Costa County Proposition 10 will distribute funds to counties based on annual number of births. In Contra Costa County the number of births each year has declined dropping from 12,737 births in 1992 to 12,288 births in 1997.Between 1992 and 1997 proportion of births has declined in West County(from 30.1%to 26.7%) ,increased in East County(from 31.5%to 34.2%) and remained about the same in Central(from 38.3% to 39.0%) Number and Percentage of Births b Region, Contra Costa Coun ,1992-1997 al .. : . . . tber#f 7urnier:zf %of Al l�tul►erf: of All �` hs �ityBirtlss Births Corzntylitrrhs.. � ths ContyBnrt , 1992 4864 38.3 4004 31.5 3820 30.1 1993 4842 38.4 4090 32.4 3665 29.1 1994 4830 38.8 4068 32.7 3536 28.4 1995 4968 39.8 4171 33.5 3316 26.6 1996 4753 38.6 4232 34.4 3315 26.9 1997 4792 39.0 4203 34.2 3281 26.7 Factors Related to_Poor,Infant Health 1. Low Birth'Weight A low birth weight baby is one that is less than 2500 grams at birth. The percentage of low birth weight births is calculated by dividing the number of infants weighing less than 2500 grams in a calendar year by the total number of live births that year. Low birth weight babies have a higher risk of congenital anomalies, need more intensive hospital care and suffer from a higher rate of illness (particularly respiratory illnesses) and death in the first year of life. .Between 1992 and 1997 there were 4,631 low birth weight births in Contra Costa County, an average of 771.8 per year. Appromately 6% of all births in the county are low birthweight births.In 1997 there were 253 low birth weight births in Central County (5.3% of all,births in CentralCounty), 277 in East County (6.6%) and 244 in West County (7.4%). Between 1992 and 1997, the percentage of low birth weight births has increased in East County(from 5.7%to 6.6%),decreased in West County(from 8.0% to 7.4) and remained the same in Central.County(from 5.0%to 5.3%) . Factors that are relaters to low birth weight births include preterm birth, tobacco use during pregnancy,young or old maternal age,low income,low maternal education level,alcohol/substance abuse during pregnancy,multiple gestation,history of low birth weight,and late entry into prenatal. care. 2. Births to Teenagers According to the 1996 Atlas of Births to California T"eeneagerss,teenage mothers are at higher risk than older mothers for poor pregnancy outcomes including pre-eclampsia,preterm delivery, and low birthweight infants.This report also noted that teenage mothers were less likely to complete high school and become financially independent, and more likely to experience marital instability, restricted educational attainment and poor economic status. Between 1912 and 1997,the percentage of all births to teenagers(less than 18 years of age)in Contra Costa County has remained virtually the same.In 1992 there were 413 births to teenagers,constituting 3.3% percent of all births.In 1117 there were 424 births to teenagers which was 3.5%of all.births.Both Nest and Bast County have a higher percentage of births to teenagers (5.1% and 4.0%respectively)compared to Central County (1.7%) . While the highest percentage of births to teenagers occur in West County, the number and percentage of these births has steadily increased in Bast County between 1992 and 1917. Factors that contribute to births to teenagers include low income, low maternal education level, race/ethnicity (.African American, Hispanic), lack of effective contraceptive use/family planning practices,lack of education/counseling regarding contraceptive use/family planning,previous teen pregnancy, and initiation of sexual activity at a young age. 3.Lack of Prenatal Care in the First Trimester Prenatal care in the first trimester refers to the percentage of mothers who received prenatal health services in the first three months of pregnancy,which is the optimal time for such care.Prenatal care is an important component in the development of a healthy baby.Early and comprehensive prenatal care improves the chances of a positive outcome for both mother and child by identifying conditions that might complicate the pregnancy and by providing the time for education to occur about nutrition, exercise and preparation for pregnancy,labor,delivery,postpartum and early parenting. Overall there was a significant increase in the percentage of mothers receiving prenatal care in the first trimester in Contra Costa County between 1992 and 1997.'There was a decline in the number of women receiving prenatal care in the first trimester in the East and Central County starting in 1993 and continuing until 1996.But all regions of the county improved in 1997. Factors that are related to women nal receiving prenatal care in the first trimester include low income,young maternal age/teen pregnancy,low maternal education level,race/ethnicity(African American,Hispanic),maternal substance abuse,and lack of health insurance.The timing of prenatal care is also sensitive to changing eligibility factors including whether coverage or a provider is available. Prenatal Care in First Trimester by Region Contra Costa, 1992-1997 85 0- I �' 8thAL- 75 i 1992 1993 1984 1995 1986 1997 --- — Central East ---4-- West Number and Percentage of Mothers Who Received Prenatal Care in the 1st Trimester ► Region, Contra Costa Count , 1992-1997 cr fix# 3vtctt 2vti�rt 6�g t t* rer : est* mom 1992 4210 86.6 3339 63.4 2953 77.3 1993 4268 88.1 3433 83.9 2886 78.7 1954 4193 86.8 3422 84.1 2907 62.2 IM 4263 66.2 3334 79.9 2705 81.6 1996 3886 81.8 3240 76.6 2720 82.1 1947 4281 89.3 3500 83.3 2774 64.5 z Re Ions and Cities/ Places b Zip Codes, Contra Costa Coun West Central East Cities/Places Zip Codes Cities/Places zip Codes Cities/Places Zip Codes Crockett 94525 Alamo 94507 Antioch 94509 El Cerrito 94530,94706 Blackhawk 94506 Bay Point 94565 El Sobrante 94803 Concord 94518,94519, Bethel Island 94511 94520 Hercules 94547 Casa Correo 94521 Brentwood 94513 Mira Vista 94805 Danville 64526 Byron 94514 Pinole 94564 Diablo 94528 Canyon 94516 Port Costa 94569 Lafayette 94 549 Clayton 94517 Richmond 94801,94804 Martinez 94553 Knightsen 94548 Rodeo 94572 Moraga 94556,9457'5 Oakley 94561 San Pablo 94806 Orinda 94563 Pittsburg 94565 Pleasant Hill 94523 Itheem Valley 94570 San Ramon 94583 Walnut Creek 94595,94596 Ygnacio Valley 94598 Three Regions of Centra Costa County by gip Code 94525 -+ S# # 94569 West 94520 94553 451 521 r 452 94 6 945 84549 459 04517 94507 i 61 45 ' 84675 94506 '`�-^ •8457 ~,�� 8452f3 f'r 94583 @CltEr31 i i f A,,. PLANNING THE FMCS FMO Goals, Values, Parameters THE FAMILY FOCUS GROUPS Pumose In August 1994, the planning staff of the Family !Maintenance Organization (FMO), a project sponsored by the Contra Costa County Health Services Department's Office for Service Integration (OSI), and funded by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, began a process to ask the County's parents, grandparents and foster parents about the difficulties and challenges they face in raising their children, and how the Health Services Department might make that job easier. This process was designed to enhance assessment Information already compiled through Interviews with social service and other professionals, literature searches and previous County-sponsored needs assessments. Em-cess. Recrultmentand Demograghtes During September and October 1994, FMO staff conducted fifteen 90-minute focus groups throughout the County, ultimately meeting with 141 parents, grandparents and foster parents. Staff secured locations centrally located within communities and in which participants would be comfortable. Recruitment was carried out by flyer and poster distribution at local community centers, supermarkets, foodbanks and by mailed invitations to randomly-selected Contra Costa Health Pian (CCHP) members. Local community agencies and county programs also assisted in recruitment. Participants came from a variety of ethnic, racial, educational and socio-economic backgrounds. Staff made special efforts to Include parents for whom Spanish was their primary language, parents whose children are under the jurisdiction of Child Protective Services (CPS) and foster parents. Some demographic highlights on the participants +r Ninety percent (90%) were female; +� East County residents were more heavily represented than justified by their proportion of the county population alone (however, East County is the fastest growing area within the County); e Persons of color were more heavily represented than Justified by their proportion of the county population alone; July 1995 -4. Contra Costa County Health Services Department Office for Service Integration PLANNING THE FMO Summary of Family Focus Groups • Forty-six percent (46%) of those responding to the question reported an annual family income of $10,000 per year or less; 19% had family incomes greater than $35,000 per year; and • Fifteen percent (15'x) of respondents reported having no health insurance coverage. Except for the small representation of fathers, demographic information on focus group participants proved consistent with FMO staff's goals for participation. mar ation ou ht Participants were asked to describe their families and to share with staff what they liked about raising children in Contra Costa County, what challenges they faced and what ideas they had for haw things could work better. Additionally, participants were asked several questions about their Impressions of the Health Services Department. , sul s What Parents Like About Raising Children in Contra Costa County Two significant areas of praise were mentioned. • QualilyCa[e, and Service, - Though most parents expressed confusion about haw to use county services and frustration over longwants for appointments and to see care givers, many parents were char that once they did get through the system, they were very pleased with the quality of care and services they received from County Health Services. • SugDort SgrM#ces - A few parents reported that when they did ask for help and support, they were grateful (and surprised) at the number of people willing to help them and at the wide range of services and programs available. Some parents spoke at length about the difference some staff members made by treating them with kindness, compassion and respect, and taking the time to listen which helped the parents to help themselves. Juty IM 5 Contra Costa County Heatth services Department office for service integration PLANNING THE FMO Summary of Family Focus Groups What Parents Want and Nand The needs of these Contra Costa County parents were basic, straightforward and similar to parents throughout the country. Though the information FMO staff heard was rich and complex, and though the context In which it was said was often just as important as what was said,the concerns parents shared can be summarized into the following key points: a The parents seemed to be hungry for advice and support, provided on their own terms. They wanted to help themselves. They asked mainly for assistance to do a better job. They wanted someone to talk to when they did not know where else to turn about problems with their children. They wanted to be able to ask for help without risking adverse consequences for admitting their need for assistance. Some liked the idea of classes and support groups. Others said help by telephone would work. Many needed help with transportation and/or child care to take advantage of programs. In most cases, programs need to be offered at very-low or no cost, and in locations convenient to their homes and jobs. a Many parents said that they do not get what they need because information about available resources is confusing and not readily available. Some parents talked about staff not knowing enough about resources in the community and not taking the time to help them figure out what they need and how to get it. Others explained that when they did ask for help, they found it, although sometimes It took luck and persistence to get it. e Parents frequently cited lack of parental employment, lack of affordable child care, lack of well-supervised recreational activities for children and lack of job opportunities for teens as realities which they knew put their children at greater risk for school failure, low self-esteem, and exposure to crime and gangs. e Violence emerged again and again as an issue. The parents were fearful for their children's safety and their own. Many also talked about the negative effects of perceived racism on their children. • Parents who used county health or social services both praised and criticized the services, depending on their personal experiences. Criticism focused on system rigidities, lack of coordination across programs, perceived negative staff attitudes, and waiting times for appointments and care. Praise was spoken for caring staff who did their jogs well. July Less .6- contra scontra Costa County Health Services Department office for Service Integration PLANNING THE FMO Summary of Family Focus Groups e Lack of health insurance and loss of Medi-Cal and child rare benefits when trying to move off welfare were very significant issues for parents. Many stated they felt trapped by the rules of the system. • Some parents specifically asked for more mental health services, affordable dental care, developmental services for children, more bilingual services and staff and a better information and referral system. CoMarlson to !2ther Fladinas The findings from the FMO focus groups were consistent with information gathered previously from literature search and interviewing efforts. This Information,previously distributed as the .Family Strengths and Needs Assessmeol planning document, confirmed that many of the Issues and concerns which health and human service professionals raised on behalf of families were the same ones which concerned families themselves. In addition to confirming earlier findings, the FMO focus groups provided some detailed suggestions about how services could be improved. Conclualons The parent participants in the FMO focus groups, regardless of racial or ethnic background, or educational or economic status, were working hard to raise their families and cope with issues which arose. They appeared tired and over-stressed. The parents had many Issues in common with one another. These concerns sometimes took on a life of their own during the discussions. Parents needed to vent, to connect with one another, and to hear that other parents were struggling with the same Issues. The Information provided by parent participants was significant and complex. The concerns could not be boiled down into one or two key problems. It was evident to FMO staff, however,that the following themes of concern were shared by focus group participants: • Culturally competent support and advice to help parents solve their own problems and to care for themselves and their families; • Accountable and responsive government systems and services; e Quality and affordable health care, including mental health services, developmental assessment services and dental care; .lulu 1995 .7- Contra 7-Contra Costa County Health Services Department Office for Service Integration PLANNING THE FMCS Summary of Family Focus Groups • Easily accessible and accurate Information and referral, • Affordable child care and children's recreational, tutorial and educational programs and activities, staffed with.appropriately-trained personnel; • Effective education and job training programs; • Employment which pays a living wage; • Affordable, reliable and convenient transportation; and • Affordable housing In safe communities. Many of the forces buffeting parents were economic and the result of a fraying social fabric. Thus, the list of what parents want included many suggestions outside the responsibility and control of the Health Services Department and even county government. The focus groups provided us a rich store of information. FMO staff was struck by the seriousness of the challenges facing the parents who participated in the focus groups and the honesty with which they expressed their need for help. The challenge for us is to define the specific ways by which we can be part of a support system which helps parents overcome these challenges. Next Stags The Health Services department will continue interagency activity with other county departments and systems such as education, as well as community agencies, to strengthen the health of families. Such efforts have begun already through participation in the Service integration Teams in North Richmond and Vilest Pittsburg/Bay Point and the Policy Academy. The next step for the FMCS planning effort is to Identify specific changes within the health system which can be made to assist families more effectively. The particular areas for attention will Include how the system can be made more "family-friendly" and how services can be reorganized or created in order to fill the health services gaps identified by parents. ftw#4v. t&tr p.795 July 1995 Contra costa county Health Servloes department Office for Servioe Integration t. Office of the County Counsel Centra Creta County 551 Pine Street, 9th Floor Phone: (925)335-1800 Martinez, CA 94553 Fax: (925)646-1078 Hate: March 1, 1999 To: Board of Supervisors From: Victor J. Westman, Count Cou�� Y Fie: County Strategic Pian Adoption for Proposition 10 Implementation At the Finance Committee's February 22, 1999 meeting, this office was asked to obtain the opinion of the California Attorney general as to whether it was necessary to adopt the County Commission's first strategic plan prier to July 1, 1999 in order to avoid any risk of losing Proposition 10 tobacco tax funds received for the period between January 1 and June 30, 1999. In doing the legal analysis required to support such an opinion request to the Attorney general's office, I formed the opinion that it is clearly not necessary for the County Commission to adopt its first strategic plan on or before July 1, in order to retain Proposition 10 tobacco taxes received prior to June 30, 1999. For this reason, I recommend that no California Attorney general's opinion be requested in this regard. DISCUSSION, Proposition 10 was approved at the November 1998 general election and enacted the "California Children and Families First Act of 1998" (the "Act") by adding Division 108 (commencing with Section 130100)to the California Health and Safety Code. All section references hereafter will be to provisions contained in Division 108. The Act provides that for participating counties (such as Contra Costa) after January 1, 1999, 80% of the Proposition 10 tobacco taxes collected shall be allocated and appropriated to county commissions for the period between January 1, 1999 and June 30, 2000. (§§l 30105(d), (2) & 130140(a).) For funds that any participating county receives between January 1, 1999 and June 30, 2000, no expenditures may be made until and unless the involved county commission has adopted its first county strategic plan. (§130140(b).) The Act further provides that any funds allocated and appropriated to a local county commission's trust fund that are not encumbered or expended within any applicable fiscal period remain in the same local trust fund for expenditure during that next fiscal period in accordance with the involved county commission's approved strategic plan. (§130105, (d), (2XB).) For the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2000, and each fiscal year thereafter, a county commission will continue to receive Proposition 10 tax revenues only if it has properly adopted an adequate county strategic plan, submitted the plan to the state commission, conducted required public hearings and completed and submitted all Board of Supervisors March 1, 1999 Page 2 audits required to the state commission. (§130140, (d).) The only provision in the Act (Proposition 10)that requires the return of funds to the state commission after they are deposited in the local county trust fund is where a county "elects not to continue participation in the"Act's program. In which case, any unencumbered and unexpended funds remaining in the local trust fund shall be returned to the state trust fund for reallocation and reappropriation to remaining participating counties in the following fiscal year. (§ 130140,(e).) Based on the foregoing noted provisions and sections of the Act (Proposition 10), it is my opinion that the only event that would require that funds be returned from the local county trust fund to the state trust fund prior to July 1, 2000, would be the Beard of Supervisors' election not to continue participation with the Act's program. VJ1J /jh cc Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Attn: Scott Tandy, Chief Assistant William Walker, Health Services Director H:UHERE'K)1aNN STRTEGRC.WPD KATHLEEN CCSNNELL C l antraller of f4u Stnfe of Qlalirfmni t March 3, 1999 The Honorable Kenneth J. Corcoran Auditor-Controller, County of Contra Costa Finance Building,loom 103 625 Court Street Martinez,CA 94553-1282 Bear Mr. Corcoran: The California.Children and Families First Act of 1998, (Proposition 10),creates a program for the early development of children. Money for this program is to be collected from taxes imposed on tobacco products in the State. The majority of the money collected will be allocated to county commissions based on the number of births in the county in accordance with Health and Safety Code section 130140. To be eligible to receive an allocation the county board of supervisors must adapt an ordinance that contains the minimum previsions outlined in Health and Safety Code section 130140. In order for our office to begin making payments to your county,you must notify us in writing that you have complied with the provisions of section 130140, and specifically the following, 1. A certification that a county Children and Families First Commission has been established, identifying the members by name and title. 2. A certification that the commission has adopted a complete county strategic plan for the support and improvement of early childhood development within the county. 3. A copy of the resolution by the Board of Supervisors establishing the Children and Families First Trust Fund. Please fax your documentation to(916)327-3163 no later than March 10, 1999, with the original signed documents to follow by mail. We are estimating that our first payment under this program will be in mid-March of 1999. If you have any questions, please contact Michael Davey in the County Cost Plans and Local Apportionment unit at(916)322-9891. Sincerely, . KATHLEEN CO HELL State Controller ! i SACRAMENTO W)Capital Mall, Suite 11150, Sacrwncnto, CA 951114 (916),4145-2616 F', Mailing Adds s�,: P.O. Box 4)421{:5{), Sacramento, CA 94250 LOS AN*(il:l.l:S NX) ('oiporaw lloinE4°. Suile 1 151), 0tiver Div. CA IM21010 10) ;42-%78 BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING IN THE MATTED OF: } } Donald W. Monson ) 15-1.6 Balla Monte S. ) Bay Paint, CA 94565 ) Re: APPEAL DECISION } } I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have been, a citizen of the United States, over acre 18; and that today i deposited with the United States Posta'_ Service. in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid, a copy of the Board of Supervisors ' final decision Board Order on April 13, 1999, in the above matter to the following: State of California-Franchise max Board P.O. Box 2952 Sacramento, CA 95812 Instrument #98--69204 Donald W. Monson 1 Merrimac Ct . Bay Point, CA 94565 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct . Dated; April 19, 1999 at Martinez, California 7 r PCD CLERK The Board of SupervIsGsContra Phil Batc color County Administration Building Costa Counf y and 651 Pine Street, Roots :g6 and Admin: {925}335-1900 Martinez, California 94553-1293 County .Jahn Giola, 1 st Distrc` Gayle Ulikerna,2nd District Donna Gerber,3rd District , �+ Mark UeSaulnier,4th District Jere CenCiarrtllla,5th. C?IStrlCt March 22, 1999 Donald W. Monson 1 Merrimac Court Danville CA 94526 Dear Mr. Munson: In accordance with Contra Costa County Ordinance Code Section 14-6.410(public nuisance), you are hereby notified that on Tuesday, April 13, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. is the date and time set for the hearing of your appeal from the decision of the County Abatement Officer declaring the substandard duplex dwelling and attached accessory shed at 18— 16 Bella Monte S., Bay Point, in violation of Section 712-2.002 and 712-2.2004 of the Contra Costa.County Ordinance Code and declaring said violation a public nuisance. The hearing will be conducted in accordance with procedures set forth in Contra Costa County Ordinance Code Section 1446.410. A copy of the Uniform Public Nuisance Abatement Procedure is enclosed for your reference. If you challenge this matter in Court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to, the public hearing. Very truly yours, PML BATCHELOR, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board By *13arbaraS. ant, puty Clerk sttIch"Ient cc:Couaty Counsel Building Inspection File List i r.: SENDER, a:--o�y� o e e va vc eta-e Mi 2�a acu cna ssrv;--es. i fo'? h Se wives 110tet, ms 3,4a and b :. 0 a r y ar^e address a t^a v o` ° s r +de � ?X a tee, F 0 x A�acn h ':0 5 mB.- C C erg space s'..D: i e 5 c a k:e l r ies en Delivery N Ra„r..pece;V ws;show'c wro m Y'te 5,.,.e was de ds C c:a.,a cas € P 160 254_161 DONALD W. MONSO � v. 1 MERRIMAC COURT «: DANVILLE CA 94526 .�.> 5.Rece.ed By «t;'(". etm..:j 8Addressee's Address i0. 'y'-'Y r"6 �e'�if sqt�,i2yf}.;6m t�''.C�`.`�e.30-; `r i' i [ti i? t E: G: i i? t i' t? i j I, --------------------- I BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA is AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING IN THE MATTER OF ) 't ) G DONALD W. MONSON ) 18 BELLA MONTE AVENUE ) BAY POINT CA 94565 ) Re: APPEAL ) I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all tunes herein mentioned have been, a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited Certified Mail with Contra Costa County Central Service for mailing by the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, first class postage fully prepaid, a copy of the hearing notice, and the code section in the above matter to the following: s 3 Donald W. Monson 1 Merrimac Court Danville CA 94526 Donald W. Monson 18 S. Bella Monte Avenue c Bay Point CA 94565 x I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true an-' California. P 160 254 17 3 Dated: March 22, 1999 US FwW S-%irAce Receipt for Certified Mail Dept C kv ;. Dona 1 d W. -_-m ou,_�.........,.� & 4aa — f P 160 254 s Receipt for Certified til VV Sped&c4hiwy:°; (£ WS Da#;,Z.M ' wr �s a3Sfi`t.4,�,u 3��✓�£tJd � ,_..z...,..�„�r,.k s�H ;S i